Africa

Ugandan bombings

Uganda bombed

THERE have been warnings for the last two years, and they have been specific: unless Uganda withdraws its 3,000-strong detachment of African Union troops from Somalia, suicide bombers of the al-Qaeda-linked Shabab militia, which controls much of south and central Somalia, will detonate themselves in Uganda. A series of bomb blasts in Kampala last night may be the first realisation of that threat.

Ugandan police say 74 people have died so far. A similar number are seriously injured. Whoever planted the bombs had no consideration about ripping apart people watching the World Cup Final on large screen televisions. A closer look reinforces the suspicion that the Shabab were behind the attack. Shabab clerics and commanders in Somalia have been cheerful in their response, apparently welcoming the carnage. "Uganda is one of our enemies," said Yusuf Issa, a Shabab commander in Mogadishu. "Whatever makes them cry, makes us happy." Then there was the choice of targets. One was an Ethiopian restaurant; Ethiopia is the archenemy of Somali Islamists. The other was the Kyadondo Rugby Club used by the national rugby team for international matches. It attracts middle-class Ugandans and expatriates. Kyadondo is also popular with Ugandan army officers.

The bombings bring into focus concerns in the United States, Britain, and France, and particularly in Kenya and Ethiopia, that the Shabab may launch terrorist attacks on their soil. Barack Obama has already spoken out against the bombings. At least one American and scores of other expatriates were killed. America will now be mobilising intelligence and forensic teams to assist Uganda in tracking down the bombers. Many questions remain unanswered. It is not clear, for instance, whether or not this was a suicide attack. Uganda's police chief says the bombs were well coordinated and designed to cause maximum damage. The response will have to be as well, if east Africa is not become a bloody new front in the global jihad. However, the ineffective and half-hearted approach towards Somalia by Washington and others may already have made the spread of jihad inevitable.

Another angle to watch for is how Christians in Uganda respond to the bombings. President Yoweri Museveni will have to act decisively to prevent lynching of members of the Somali community in Uganda. The Pentecostals, in particular, have been fierce in their criticism of Islam. They have claimed a lot of success in converting Ugandan Muslims to Christianity. That is something which some Muslims may use in their propaganda to justify the killings. In any case, Uganda's brassy televangelists will likely see this as an opportunity to speak out even more aggressively against Muslims. That, in turn, could have a destabilising effect on Uganda.

@ Nirvana-bound: what's happened? I agree with your last two points (except I couldn't respect aniscal's points as they are conspiratorial lunacy that has no relation to evidence or fact). Glad we can agree on something!

@ christopher haslett - aniscal has no point what so ever. Ravings of a lunatic do not constitute an argument. What does it matter what CNN or the like say of Africa - does that change the facts which you clearly state? Who gets more press, the US or Africa? The US. Who gets raving conspiratorial rants about nothing? The US. It's got everything to do with ratings which is further a derivative of interest and attention span. Until you solve those everyone is in the same boat.

@ aniscal - you are simply wrong. you have no evidence for anything that you claim. You can rant all you like about nonsense and that's you're right because you live (or have access) to sensational democracies and their liberal views which provide you with this access. As opposed to all these allegedly wronged countries you quote.

"Your people divided Koreans, Indians and Pakistanis, Iraq, Palestine, China and attempted to divide Vietnam but failed. You occupied Australia from the aborigines, you forcefully occupied America from the natives and killed them mercilessly and also told lies that the places were empty."

I'm well aware of the standard Australian boasts about on Australia's impact on world history e.g. being the world's best sporting nation since 1877 or perhaps 1882 , winning World War 1 in Palestine and on the Western Front (with some help from the British and French and late arriving Americans) ... holding back both the blitzkrieg and the Japanese - with some help from the British and the late arriving Americans again.

I've also heard about Australian treatment - displacement, genocide or whatever of the Aborigines.

You've provided some new ones though. Dividing China? Wasn't that the Kuomintang? - not an Australian institution though there used to be three or four Communist parties in Australia. Native Americans? didn't Australia get started because the convicts couldn't go to America any more because it was run by people who didn't want to be British?

Or wait - you are surely not suggesting that Americans and Australians and British are all the same people - perhaps along with the Irish - they are very like the English after all, speak the same language mostly and clearly have supported all British policy for the past 100 years?

I could have repected your viewpoint, if you admitted, even for a moment, to the innumerable & mindless acts of violence & terror, being perpetrated every single day by Islamists, across the globe, while so quick to point out the atrocities emanating from Washington.

But like every other Muslim, you blindly endeavour to justify & legitimise Islamic militancy, by providing lame excuses & empty rationale for their perpetration.

Yet another classic example of the sage words: "There is none so blind as he who will not see." (And of course you will continue to insist that Islam is the religion of peace, needless to say.!

The Economist's formulaic approach to reporting is at its height when the topic is Africa. It sees only tribes and religions in conflict, without acknowledging any mitigating trends. What about tribal intermarriage, for example? That is growing quickly, as are Muslim-Christian unions.

I tire of telling people that Africa is more than just Somalia and South Africa, and that most Africans live decent, moderate lives. But it seems there is always a fresh supply of people who think they are all a bunch of hatchet-murderers. To hear this view from 18-year-olds - who probably think they believe in all the right things - is especially frustrating.

I find it hard not to agree with those who feel The Economist is on a mission to portray Africa in the harshest possible light.

If the editors disagree, could they not shift their focus away from the trouble spots occasionally?

No country is immune from a terrorist attack.I have not seen any response from the Muslim community about this barbaric attack.

Then again, perhaps we should point a finger at Israel, after all, she has always been guilty until proven guilty, right? Or, where is the outcry from the UN., but then again,isn't the UN. controlled by the Muslim countries? We could enlist Amnesty Now, to help out, or even the Tukish gov't.

Mindless people think alike. Before you see a Muslim mind set please look into the acts of mindless violence against Muslims. Muslims are only responding. I rejoice when I hear a British soldier or for that matter any of those 'coalition of the willing forces' is killed in Afghanistan or in Iraq. Americans, British and Australians have decided to send their young people, who cannot be usefully employed, to Afghanistan and Iraq to die and be fodder for generating more anti Muslim fanatics in the World. The politicians who do that gain both ways and, mind you, they do not feel an iota of guilt in sacrificing the lives of some poor people who go to serve in their armies. Bush generated such hatred for Muslims in America that he succeeded in getting a second term. He not only fooled the Americans but went on to literally destroy his country financially. This crook went on to fool Tony the dog who in turn took British people through his counter lies to this war. And look what he has brought to Britain. An American fanatic is more dangerous in terms of devastation he can bring to his own people and the people of the world than any Al Qaida operative. Unfortunately we feel just happy when an American or a British soldier is killed anywhere because they are fighting an unjust war killing and maiming innocent people. It is also unfortunate that Uganda became a victim of such American manouvering that without knowing they became American ally. Yesterday the American Ambassador to Uganda said he opposed Ugandan withdrawal from Somalia. He knows very well what nonsense he is capable of saying. Uganda must not follow the edicts of these rascals. Else they will only be destroyed - internally as well as externally.

The only hope of ever turning the militant/jihadist Islamic mind-set, is by closing down each & every Madrassa, (Muslim brainwashing centres), spewing religious fanaticism & hatred, on their most vulnerable & formative minds - their youth core.

But as this is unlikely to transpire, the rest of the world has nothing but religious terrorism, carnage & mayhem, to look forward to.

With each passing day & every mindnumbing new act of religious insanity, I'm inclined to believe the old saying: "Scratch a Muslim & you'll find a fanatic". 'Moderate Muslims' is clearly an oxymoron of mammoth proportions!

My condolences to the families and friends of those who perished in these savage attacks.
Ethiopia and Uganda or the West for that matter should not give in to terrorist Al Shabab. They should help Somalis, who are the primary victims of this group, and who suffer under the hands of terrorists every minute of the day for far too long regain their rights.
This among others includes, helping those who are currently fighting for freedom and democracy financially, morally and in all other spheres except sending troops to fight along side with them.
This however does not mean marching into Mogadiciou as the minority regime led Etiopia did a while back only to suffer defeat and withdraw. This doesn't mean installing a puppet regime, or talking tough as happened in the recent meeting of the east African countries.

What civilisation are you comparing with? The one that went to Iraq? The one that went to America more than 200 years back? The one that went to divide Vietnam? The one that created Israel out of Palestinian territory? Or the ones that drove Jews from their fatherland and is now supporting Jewish illegal occupation of Palestine? The ones that manufacture 'weapons of mass destruction' and sell it to various insurgents all over the world who create havoc the kind Somalis did in Uganda?

J Wu, you do not understand the human values. Just because some people killed some people does not mean anything. The killers are definitely responsible and deserve adequate punishment. But find out many many more killers who are freely roaming around and you praise them for - may be - some other reasons. For instance - George W Bush. This man is a criminal and no one talks of bringing him to justice. That includes Muslims who are the most affected victims. He told his people lies. He made a British Prime Minister tell a lie to his Parliament. Yet he is praised by most of you who write here to criticise Islam. Can't you see beyond what your small mind tells you? Or what this author tells you?

'Another angle to watch for is how Christians in Uganda respond to the bombings. President Yoweri Museveni will have to act decisively to prevent lynching of members of the Somali community in Uganda. The Pentecostals, in particular, have been fierce in their criticism of Islam. They have claimed a lot of success in converting Ugandan Muslims to Christianity. That is something which some Muslims may use in their propaganda to justify the killings. In any case, Uganda's brassy televangelists will likely see this as an opportunity to speak out even more aggressively against Muslims.'

This is absolute nonsense. The Economist is perhaps suggesting - instigating - the Christians to act against Somali Muslims. This is what British did in India before India got independence and effectively divided India and created Pakistan.

The information that Christians are converting more and more Muslims and that is the reason for Muslim aggression is absolute crap. The Economist is doing what most Muslims and many Indians have known about British ways of dividing people. This author should be remembered for what havoc he can cause with what he writes. I would not be surprised if such people like this author are found in abundance in other African countries where Muslim population is balanced with Christian population like Nigeria, Ghana and many other countries. Their purpose will be to keep writing these stupid articles and help create wider divisions in their societies. The Economist must refrain from doing this dirty work like British colonialists.